DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Govind Ram s/o Sh. Shiv Narayan, resident of #1015, Dadu Majra Colony, Sector 38-W, Chandigarh.

              ---Complainant

Vs.

1.   HDFC Bank, through its Managing Director, Registered Office, HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai.

2.   HDFC Bank, through its Branch Manager, Opposite Sophia Convent School, National Highway, Kalka (Haryana).

3.   HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. Office: Roman House, HT Parekh Marg – 169, Back Bay Reclamation, Church Gate – 400020, Mumbai.

4.   HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Branch Manager, SCO No. 119-20, Sector 43, Chandigarh.

---- Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:   MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA            PRESIDING MEMBER

                        Sh. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU    MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. Ankit Gupta, Counsel for Complainant.

              Sh. Sunil Narang, Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

Sh. Nitin Thatai, Counsel for Opposite Parties No.3 & 4.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.          The Complainant was persuaded by the officials of Opposite Party No.2 to invest a sum of Rs.2 lacs in Fixed Deposit for a term of one year. He was promised a good rate of interest. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.2 lacs was withdrawn from his account on 02.02.2012. The Complainant eagerly waited for his FDR. However, as the FDR was not delivered to him, the Complainant contacted the officials of Opposite Party No.2 who asked him to contact the office of Opposite Party No.4, as his money has not been invested in FDR; but instead the same has been invested in a life insurance policy by the Opposite Parties No. 3 and 4. When the Complainant contacted the officials of Opposite Parties No.3 and 4, he was shocked to know that his money had been invested in an insurance policy. He immediately wrote a protest letter dated 13.4.2012 to Opposite Party No.4 clearly stating that he had never given any instructions to Opposite Party No.2 to invest his money with the Opposite Parties No.3 and 4. The letter was duly acknowledged. The Complainant also made a complaint at the Customer Care number of Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 which was registered as complaint No. MOHCO41200235.

          When no action was taken by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant issued a legal notice dated 19.4.2010 to Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 for refund of the amount of Rs.2 lacs. In reply dated 10.5.2012, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 stated that they had acted as Marketing Agents of Opposite Parties No.3 & 4. Their role was only to source and collect amount of the investor and handed over to Opposite Parties No. 3 & 4. The Complainant has stated that he never gave any option to the Opposite Parties for investing his hard earned money in life insurance policy. He was further asked by Opposite Parties No. 3 & 4 to submit his bank statement from Oct. 2011 to March 2012. All other documents requisitioned were also supplied. After two months of submitting documents the Complainant received back his cheque for Rs.2 lacs in July, 2012. As this amount was received after a gap of 05 months, the Complainant has filed the present complaint alleging that he had signed the documents for fixed deposit only hence he was entitled for interest on the paid amount. The Complainant has prayed for interest @24% p.a. on the amount of Rs.2 lacs, along with damages and costs of litigation.  

2.          Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

3.          Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in their joint reply have denied all allegations mentioned in the complaint. It has been submitted that the Complainant has created a false story to mislead this Forum and he had signed the proposal form after fully understanding the terms and conditions of the policy.

          On merits, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have admitted that the Complainant has a saving bank account with the Opposite Party No.2. It has been denied that he has been persuaded to invest Rs.2 lacs in fixed deposit. In fact, the Complainant never signed any document for fixed deposit. He himself chose to purchase insurance policy willingly and had signed all relevant documents for the same. Denying all other allegations, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

4.          Opposite Parties No. 3 & 4 in reply have taken the ground of territorial jurisdiction. It has been stated that the proposal form was filled in Kalka, payment of premium was made through HDFC Bank, Kalka and the Policy was issued from Mumbai. As per settled law mere residence of the Complainant and office of the OPs does not give him the right to file the instant complaint before this Forum [Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, (2010) 1 SCC 135]. Answering Opposite Parties have denied all the allegations, facts and averments made in the complaint. It has been submitted that the Complainant has himself submitted the proposal/ application dated 15.03.2012 for purchase of HDFC SL Progrowth Super II Policy. On acceptance of proposal on the standard terms a policy commencing 27.3.2012 was issued to him. The present complaint is an afterthought and has only been filed with an ulterior motive to harass and humiliate the Opposite Parties. Since the Complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, he had written to the answering Opposite Parties vide letter dated 17.4.2012 requesting for cancellation of insurance policy and refund of money. As a goodwill gesture, the answering Opposite Parties had called for the bank account statement of the Complainant for further investigation. As and when the documents were submitted by the Complainant, the answering Opposite Parties accepted the request of the Complainant for cancellation of the policy and requested him to deposit the policy documents to process the refund of the premium amount vide letter dated 5.6.2012 (Ex.R-4). The Opposite Parties have stated that the Complainant is trying to draw undue advantage from the Opposite Parties.

          On merits, Opposite Parties No. 3 & 4 have denied that the Complainant had ever been told that a FDR would be issued to him. The contentions about the territorial jurisdiction have been reiterated. It has further been submitted that on request of cancellation, as a goodwill gesture, the answering Opposite Parties had already cancelled the policy and refunded the premium amount to the Complainant. Opposite Parties have therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

6.          We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

7.          At the outset, we do not agree with the contention of the Opposite Parties regarding territorial jurisdiction as there is correspondence on record between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties from the Chandigarh office of the Opposite Parties to substantiate cause of action in Chandigarh.

8.          The instant complaint is a demand for interest on the amount deposited by the Complainant with Opposite Parties No. 3 & 4 through Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2. As per the Complainant he had deposited an amount of Rs.2 lacs with the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 by way of FDR. However, as maintained by the Opposite Parties No.3 & 4, the amount was invested in a life insurance policy, after the Complainant had signed the proposal form which has been placed on record as Ex.R-2. The policy dated 27.3.2012 had been issued to the Complainant. Not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, the Complainant had requested for refund of money. The Opposite Parties No. 3 & 4 on receipt of this request, asked the Complainant to supply his bank details as also to fill the requisite documents. The requisite documents were filled by the Complainant and sent to the Opposite Parties No. 3 & 4. Ex.R-3 is a letter dated 26.04.2012 regarding cancellation request of the Complainant sent by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant and Ex.R-4 is letter dated 5.6.2012 wherein the request for cancellation has been accepted. It is mentioned in this letter that the refund cannot be processed until the original policy documents are submitted with the Opposite Parties No. 3 & 4. It is obvious that the Complainant has submitted the relevant documents as the amount has been refunded to him in July, 2012. It is thus evident that the policy has been returned to the Opposite Parties by the Complainant after 5.6.2012 and refund has been made to him in July, 2012.

9.          However, as the amount received by the Complainant is towards a unit linked plan, it is obvious that the Opposite Parties have retained and taken benefit on the money deposited by the Complainant from 2.2.2012 to July, 2012. As the benefit from the deposit is not disclosed, we deem it proper to direct the Opposite Parties No. 3 & 4 to give interest on the deposit.

10.        We accordingly, allow the present complaint and give the following directions to the Opposite Parties:-

i.   Opposite Parties No. 3 and 4 shall pay an interest @6% p.a. on the amount of Rs.2 lacs deposited by the Complainant from the date of its receipt, till the date of refund.

ii.  The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 shall pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation to the Complainant as they are the ones who have given the money of the Complainant to Opposite Parties No. 3 & 4 for the policy which it should have been retained as an FDR. 

11.        The above said order shall be complied by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of its receipt, failing which Opposite Parties will be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the decretal amounts; from the date of this order, till it is paid.

12.        The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

29^th April, 2013.                                   

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU

MEMBER